What Is Covenant Theology? A Guide to the Bible’s Structural Unity

Covenant theology captures the unity of the Bible. It shows how the Bible’s central message—the salvation of sinners by the work of the Lord Jesus Christ—comes to expression across the Scriptures. God’s plan of salvation unfolds in history through the many covenants that he has made with human beings. This plan, in fact, is anchored in an eternal covenant among the three persons of the Godhead.

In this survey of covenant theology, we will first clarify what covenant theology is. Next we will look at the way in which covenant theology arranges and relates to the various covenants of Scripture, underscoring the theological themes and motifs that this arrangement serves to emphasize. After this, we will probe the similarities and differences among the covenant theologies of the Westminster Standards, the Second London Baptist Confession, and progressive covenantalism. Then we will explore some of the salient differences between covenant theology and dispensationalism. Finally, we will look at several practical implications of covenant theology for faith and practice.

What is—& isn’t—covenant theology?

It is helpful at the outset to think about what covenant theology is and is not.

1. Not merely the acknowledgment of biblical covenants

First, covenant theology is not the same thing as simply recognizing that there are “covenants” in Scripture. Every reader of the Bible acknowledges the presence of covenants in Scripture, but students of the Bible disagree about the nature of these covenants and their relationship to one another.

2. Not synonymous with Reformed theology

Second, covenant theology is not synonymous with Reformed theology. There is, to be sure, considerable overlap between the two. Covenant theology has flourished in the Reformed tradition. With antecedents in the thought of the Genevan Reformer John Calvin (1509–1564), covenant theology blossomed in the writings of Calvin’s younger contemporaries, Zacharius Ursinus (1534–1583) and Caspar Olevianus (1536–1587), and, in the next century, the theology of Herman Witsius (1636–1708) and Francis Turretin (1623–1687). In Britain, William Perkins (1558–1602), David Dickson (1583–1663), and Samuel Rutherford (1600–1661) advanced a theological system explicitly structured around the covenants of Scripture.¹ But covenant theology did not originate with the Reformed tradition—one may speak of the covenant theology of the early Church Fathers and of the medieval church.² Neither is covenant theology limited to the Reformed tradition.³

But if covenant theology is not synonymous with Reformed theology, it is nevertheless interwoven with Reformed theology to such a degree that to examine the one is invariably to examine the other.

It is not surprising, then, to find the intramural diversity represented within Reformed theology present within covenant theology.

• The Westminster Standards (1647–1648) are a full and mature confessional expression of covenant theology (especially WCF 7; cf. WLC 20–36; 16–20).
• The Second London Confession (1689) is, in many respects, a revision of Westminster’s covenantal theology from the standpoint of credobaptist convictions.⁴
• More recently, progressive covenantalism is yet another attempt by Reformed credobaptist theologians to articulate the covenantal structure and content of Scripture’s teachings.⁵

3. Not a uniform, singular theology

Thus, one may not speak of a single Reformed covenant theology.

Even so, the covenant theology of the Westminster Standards serves as an historical and theological baseline for subsequent Reformed reflection on the covenants of Scripture. For this reason, we will highlight Westminsterian covenant theology in this survey, without losing sight of the way in which credobaptist covenant theologies put their own stamp on covenant theology.

What is the biblical basis for covenant theology?

A “covenant,” in brief, is a solemn divinely instituted agreement with promises and obligations.

Which covenants does covenant theology see in the Bible, and how does it understand their relationship to one another?

The historical covenants with Adam & Christ

To begin, covenant theology understands God to have made two basic covenants within human history. There is the first covenant that God made with Adam in the garden (often called the covenant of works), and there is the second covenant that God made with Christ (often called the covenant of grace). In each of these covenants, Adam and Christ are representative persons. That is to say, each stands as the divinely appointed representative of a multitude of human beings. Adam is the representative of all human beings descending from him by ordinary generation. Christ is the representative of the whole number of those persons whom God has eternally and sovereignly chosen to salvation. In these respects, we may speak of people as being in covenant with God.

In the garden of Eden, God commanded Adam to refrain from eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, threatening Adam (and all who are in Adam) with death should he do so (Gen 2:17). As the rest of Scripture shows, this death is multi-dimensional. It is physical, spiritual, and eternal in character. But by implication, had Adam continued in obedience to God and to all his commandments, he would have received life for himself and for all whom he represented. This life would have been confirmed eternal life in fellowship with God.⁶

What Christ has accomplished is twofold: It is the undoing of what Adam had done and the doing of what Adam had failed to do. By his accursed death on the cross, Christ bore the law’s curse for his people (Gal 3:13; 4:5). Thus, there is for those who are in Christ no condemnation (Rom 8:1). For them, the record of debt has been cancelled (Col 2:14), and death has been abolished (2 Tim 1:10). Christ has done what Adam failed to do. He obeyed the law perfectly in the stead of his people. On the basis of his righteousness alone, they are counted righteous in Christ (Rom 5:19; cf. Rom 8:4) and therefore entitled to eternal life (Rom 5:17, 21; 2 Tim 1:10).

Christ has accomplished the undoing of what Adam had done and the doing of what Adam had failed to do.

It is sometimes objected that the word “covenant” does not appear in Scripture before Genesis 6:18. This observation is true, but it must be remembered that the concept of covenant may be present even where the word “covenant” is not. What is the evidence that the arrangement described in Genesis 2 is, in fact, a covenant? There are passages later in the Old Testament that likely refer to the presence of a covenant in Genesis 2 (see Hos 6:7; Isa 24:5). Genesis 2, moreover, contains all the elements of a covenant:

• there are two parties (God and Adam) in solemn agreement,
• with God giving to Adam a promise of eternal life,
• a specific command,
• and a threat of eternal death for breaking that command.

Furthermore, the Apostle Paul testifies to a covenant that God made with Adam before his fall into sin. In 1 Corinthians 15:20–23, 42–49, and Romans 5:12–21, Paul makes a running comparison between Adam and Christ. These two men are parallel to one another in one important respect. Each is a representative man whose work is imputed to those whom he represents. But they differ vitally in another respect. Adam’s disobedience led to death, Christ’s obedience led to life. Elsewhere, Paul explicitly speaks of Christ and his work as covenantal (see 1 Cor 11:25; Rom 11:27; 2 Cor 3:6). Given the structural similarities between Adam (and his work) and Christ (and his work), it follows that, if Christ’s work is covenantal, then Adam’s work is no less covenantal. We must therefore speak of the arrangement in Eden as a covenant.

The historical covenants in between Adam & Christ

The intervening period of history between Adam and Christ is no less covenantal in character.

God made a promise to Adam and Eve before he exiled them from the garden (Gen 3:15). God pledged to raise up from Eve an “offspring” who would “bruise” the head of the serpent (who, in turn, would “bruise [the] heel” of that offspring). That promise, Paul tells us, finds its intended and ultimate fulfillment in the person and work of Christ (Rom 16:20; cf. 2 Cor 1:20).

This promise of an offspring is the thread that runs through the whole of the Old Testament.

• The covenant that God makes with Noah serves to preserve this offspring from the existential threats of violence and corruption (Gen 6:1–7).
• The Abrahamic covenant administers God’s promise to Abram that his offspring will bless the nations, a promise that Paul insists finds its substance and its intended and ultimate fulfillment in Christ (Gal 3:6–29; Rom 4:9–25).
• The Mosaic covenant orders the life of Abraham’s descendants, directing their gaze to the person and work of the promised messiah in whom alone they will find their salvation (Gal 3:19–25).
• The covenant that God made with David (2 Sam 7:1–17) pledges to David a descendant who will be God’s son and whose reign will endure forever, which the New Testament confirms found its intended and ultimate fulfillment in the death and resurrection of the Son of God, the Lord Jesus Christ (Matt 22:41–46; Acts 2:34–36).
• Finally, the new covenant promised by Jeremiah (31:31–34) has now been realized in the life and ministry of Christ (Heb 8:8–13).

Importantly, each of these successive covenants builds upon and extends what precedes them. But they are not only progressive. They are also organically related. As a seed matures to a sapling and then to a tree, so the redemptive covenants of the Bible tender the promise of Christ to the people of God until that promise arrives at historical maturation.⁷ For this reason, these covenants are really administrations of a single, gracious covenant, inaugurated in Genesis 3:15 and brought to consummation in the incarnate life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

The eternal covenant preceding Adam & Christ

Many covenant theologians have insisted on one additional covenant.⁸ This covenant does not fall within history but stands outside history, in eternity. As such, it serves to undergird the two great covenants of history (i.e., the covenant of works and the covenant of grace).

This “covenant of redemption” is the agreement among the three persons of the Godhead to secure the salvation of the elect. The Father agrees to send the Son into the world to save sinners and to reward his Son for his finished work. The Son consents to assume our humanity and, in obedience to the Father, to suffer and die on the cross. As the reward of his completed mission, the God-man Christ Jesus is glorified by the Father. The Spirit expresses his concurrence by agreeing to be sent to equip and empower the Son for his redemptive work on earth. Furthermore, it is by the Spirit that the Father exalts the Son in the Son’s glorious resurrection from the dead.

Although Scripture does not denominate this arrangement as a “covenant,” there are ample biblical reasons for speaking of it as such. Jesus, for instance, testifies to his having been “sent” by the Father into the world (John 17:3) to do “the will of him who sent me” (John 6:39), even the “works that the Father has given me to accomplish” (John 5:36). That mission concerns the complete and final salvation of “all that [the Father] has given” Christ (John 6:39; cf. 6:37). In keeping with the “charge” that he has “received from [the] Father,” Jesus lays down his life for the sheep at the cross (John 10:18, 15). Speaking proleptically of this mission as completed, Jesus claims his reward from the Father, namely, glory (John 17:4–5). Jesus does not hoard this glory for himself, but shares it with the ones whom the Father has given to him (John 17:24). This glory, of course, will come into the possession of the elect through the ministry of the Spirit.

How does covenant theology function?

1. Explains the unity of Scripture

Taken together, the covenants of Scripture (redemption, works, and grace) serve to anchor the historical work of God in the eternal plan of God. In so doing, covenant theology explains how it is that the Bible is one story.

The redemption of sinners in Jesus Christ unites the whole of the biblical narrative. The purposes of God for human beings at creation have not been derailed by the fall of humanity in Adam. On the contrary, they will be realized through the saving work of the Last Adam, Jesus Christ. At the consummation, God will have gathered to himself a fully redeemed humanity, Jew and gentile.

Underlying the rich diversity of the biblical books is a grand unity expressed by the divine commitment, “I will be their God and they shall be my people” (Jer 31:33).

2. Underscores salvation by divine grace

Covenant theology’s account of Scripture’s unity underscores leading concerns and emphases of biblical teaching:

• Salvation is entirely the work of the sovereign triune God.
• The Father freely and unconditionally elects some persons to eternal life.
• The Son accomplishes all that is necessary for the salvation of the elect.
• The Spirit applies that salvation to the elect in God’s appointed time.

For these reasons, salvation is by grace alone and to the glory of God alone.

3. Centers the person & work of Christ

Covenant theology also shows the Christocentricity of Scripture.

Christ is the Savior of all God’s elect. The one covenant of grace, although administered in various covenants across redemptive history, has provided one Savior and one way of salvation for people in every age (Rom 3:25; 4:1–12; Heb 9:14). There is, consequently, a single people of God. For all their formal differences, Israel and the church are the one company of the redeemed in Christ (1 Pet 2:9; Heb 3:1–6; cf. Rom 11:16–24).

What differences exist between covenantal theologies?

This sketch of covenant theology has thus far stressed what many (if not all) Reformed covenant theologians hold in common. There are, however, some important differences between students of Scripture who identify themselves as covenant theologians.

Many Reformed Baptists, for instance, hold to the covenant theology articulated by the Second London Baptist Confession or to the system that has come to be known as progressive covenantalism. Each system argues for a prevailingly covenantal theology of the Bible. But each does so in a way that differs from the covenantal theology of the Westminster Standards, and even from one another.

The covenant theology of the Second London Baptist Confession

Reformed Baptists in the tradition of the Second London Baptist Confession have seen the covenant of grace as “revealed progressively” under the Old Testament, but only “formally concluded” in the new covenant.⁹ Thus, this tradition equates the covenant of grace with the new covenant.

As a result, the ecclesiology and sacramentology of the Old Testament does not presumptively convey to the New Testament. The new covenant, these proponents urge, while continuous with the old covenant, marks a significant change in the composition of God’s people and in the administration of divine ordinances. Unlike Israel, the church under the new covenant consists entirely of “particular congregations” of “visible saints” (LBC 26.2). Whereas the initiatory ordinance of the old covenant (circumcision) was administered to the offspring of believers, the initiatory ordinance of the new covenant (baptism) is to be administered only to those professing repentance, faith, and Christian obedience (LBC 29.2).

Progressive covenantalism

Progressive covenantalism is a form of covenant theology that is more recent in origin and has not presently come to confessional expression. Its leading proponents, Peter Gentry and Stephen Wellum, argue for a succession of covenants beginning in the garden and concluding with the new covenant.¹⁰ While they do not argue for the bi-covenantal theology of the Westminster Standards or the Second London Baptist Confession, they single out these first and final covenants as having structural prominence in the Bible’s covenantal succession.

Like Reformed Baptists in the tradition of the London Baptist Confession, Gentry and Wellum argue for a sufficient measure of difference between Israel and the church as to admit of credobaptism within the church. Unlike these Reformed Baptists, they do not believe that the Decalogue is formally binding upon new covenant believers.

At root in these differences

One way to interrelate these three expressions of covenant theology is along the lines of unity and diversity.

Credobaptist covenant theologians argue that paedobaptist covenant theologians flatten the diversity among the redemptive covenants of Scripture and yield an under-realized eschatology. In other words, paedobaptists’ understanding of the new covenant is said to be insufficiently “new.”

Paedobaptist covenant theologians, however, argue that credobaptist covenant theologians risk severing the unity among the redemptive covenants of Scripture and yield an over-realized eschatology. In other words, credobaptists’ understanding of the new covenant fails to appreciate the degree to which the ecclesiology of the church remains in continuity with the ecclesiology of Israel.

How does covenant theology compare to dispensationalism?

Standing athwart all expressions of covenant theology is dispensationalism.

Dispensational distinctives

As with covenant theology, it is hazardous to generalize dispensational systems of thought. One may, however, safely affirm some commonalities that carry across many dispensationalists’ understandings of the structure of Scripture.¹¹

Dispensationalists understand biblical history to be ordered by what are called “dispensations.” The number of these dispensations can vary from one dispensationalist author to another, but there is general agreement that a dispensation is a period of time in which God particularly tests human beings. Human failure serves as the occasion for God’s introduction of the next dispensation. Thus, dispensations are progressive in nature but not organically united to one another.

Another characteristic of dispensationalism is its historical insistence that Israel and the church are two peoples (not one people, as most covenant theologians maintain). To those two peoples correspond two divine purposes and destinies. Old Testament Israel is given earthly promises (offspring, land, the Davidic reign of Jesus) that will come to ultimate fulfillment in the future events preceding the final return of Christ at the end of history. The New Testament church receives spiritual promises that have been fulfilled in Christ. Most dispensationalists confess that salvation has always been on the basis of the work of Christ alone and through faith in him alone. But dispensationalists have also insisted that God is doing more than saving individual persons. He is bringing glory to his name by making and keeping special earthly promises for Israel.

Covenant theology’s disagreement

Covenant theologians point out that all of the promises that God made to Israel find their intended and ultimate fulfillment in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

• The offspring that God promised to Abraham, Paul tells us, is Christ and, consequently, those who are in Christ (Gal 3:16, 29). For this reason, Paul can tell the largely gentile church in Corinth that the Israelites of the wilderness generation are “our fathers” (1 Cor 10:1).
• The land that God promised to Abraham pointed beyond itself. For this reason, Paul speaks of Abraham as “heir of the world” (Rom 4:13), and Hebrews tells us that Abraham “was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose designer and builder is God,” namely, “a better country, that is, a heavenly one” (Heb 11:10, 16).
• The restoration of the temple promised in the prophets has reference to Christ, the Temple of God (John 2:18–23; Rev 21:22). Christ is the cornerstone of the eschatological temple of God, the church (Matt 21:42; 1 Pet 2:4–8; Eph 2:20–22).
• God’s promise regarding the Davidic reign of Jesus was ultimately fulfilled at the resurrection and ascension (Acts 2:30–36).

God, therefore, does not have two peoples with two sets of promises corresponding to each. He has one people and one set of promises. In each, God brings glory to himself through his Son, our Savior and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Dispelling misunderstandings

It is important to address a couple of misunderstandings that sometimes surface in relation to covenant theology.

First, covenant theology does not entail the binding of an unwilling God. On the contrary, it is the sovereign God who is pleased to bind himself and to commit himself to his people and their eternal well-being.

Neither does covenant theology understand the relationship between God and human beings to be such that God will fulfill his obligations to us on the condition that we first fulfill our obligations to him. Rather, covenant theology insists that, for sinners, any obligations that God lays upon human beings in his gracious covenant with them are obligations that he enables them to fulfill by the resources of the grace that he freely provides in Christ. The communion between God and his people is fundamentally gracious in nature. All that the sinner needs in order to stand in right relation with God and to enjoy fellowship with God is richly supplied by God himself.

What are the practical implications of covenant theology?

To conclude this survey of covenant theology, it is helpful to think about its implications for the way in which Christians understand the Bible and apply its teachings to their lives.

1. Humans

Covenant theology teaches us how to view ourselves and other human beings.

For all the lines of diversity that run through the human race, every person is either “in Adam” or “in Christ.” In Adam, a person stands justly condemned before God and estranged from him. In Christ, a person stands justified by God and adopted into the family of God.

The church, therefore, longs to see those who are in Adam get into Christ, and to see those who are already in Christ mature in Christ.

2. Salvation

Covenant theology furnishes a window into our salvation.

• God takes the initiative in salvation. In a way that gloriously reflects his triune being, God plans, accomplishes, and applies the redemption of the sinner.
• Justification is based entirely upon the work of God in Christ, and in no way upon a person’s works.
• The pursuit of holiness is an obligation that rests upon every Christian, but God furnishes the Christian with everything that he or she needs to pursue Christlikeness.
• Because salvation is not suspended upon the bare exercise of the human will, the believer has a sure foundation to persevere in grace—he or she will neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace.
• This reality no less affords grounds for the believer’s assurance—a Christian may know that he or she is truly saved and will therefore persevere to the end.

3. The Bible

Covenant theology helps us to be better readers of the Bible. It reminds us that the whole Bible is about the person and work of Jesus Christ (Luke 24:44–49).

For all its diversity, the Old Testament was always gesturing to Christ. The whole Bible, and every part of the Bible, is authored to show us Christ.

As Hebrews reminds us, there is a genuine diversity to the Old Testament, “long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets” (Heb 1:1). But, Hebrews continues, “in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son.” For all its diversity, the Old Testament was always gesturing to Christ and to God’s “last days” speech in Christ. The shadows of the Old Testament find their substance in Christ, Paul tells us (Col 2:17). The whole Bible, and every part of the Bible, is authored to show us Christ.

4. Worship

Covenant theology helps us to appreciate the nature and significance of the church’s worship.

• In worship, the people of God draw near to the God who has entered into and keeps covenant with them.
• In God’s Word, they are reminded of his covenant promises and of their high calling to live and to walk in close fellowship with their covenant God.
• In the administration of the sacraments—covenant ordinances for the covenant people of God—believers witness tangible signs and confirmation of the truth of God’s promises.
• In the benediction, God sends his people out into the world with his covenant blessing.

5. Mission

Finally, covenant theology helps us to appreciate the church’s mission.

As God is a “going” God, so the church is a “going” church (John 20:21; Matt 28:19; Luke 24:47). From the beginning, God has blessed his people so that they may go and be instruments of blessing to others (Gen 12:2–3). The church does this by going into the world, proclaiming the good news of Jesus Christ, and gathering into its fellowship all those who put their trust in Christ.

The good news is truly good—God in covenant mercy has saved a people for himself and will keep them to the end. Armed in the confidence of God’s steadfast covenant faithfulness, the church gladly goes out into the world until “the earth [is] filled with the knowledge of the glory of the LORD as the waters cover the sea” (Hab 2:14).

Guy Water’s suggested resources for studying covenant theology

Accessible surveys

More advanced treatments

Related content

• Describing Diatheke: Covenant in the Bible
• Covenant Theology Versus Dispensationalism: The Strengths of the Major Systems
• What Is Reformed Theology? Its Roots, Core Beliefs & Key Leaders
• What Is a Reformed Baptist? Beliefs, History & Key Leaders to Know

1. For brief and helpful historical surveys of “covenant” in the writings of these theologians, see Andrew A. Woolsey, Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly (Reformation Heritage, 2012); Stephen G. Myers, God to Us: Covenant Theology in Scripture (Reformation Heritage, 2021), 26–33. In particular, note Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man, trans. William Crookshank, 2 vols. (London: R. Baynes et al., 1822); and Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, 3 vols. (P&R, 1992–1997).
2. J. Ligon Duncan, “Covenant in the Early Church,” in Guy Prentiss Waters, J. Nicholas Reid, John R. Muether, eds., Covenant Theology: Biblical, Theological, and Historical Perspectives (Crossway, 2020), 291–310; see especially Douglas F. Kelly, “Covenant in the Medieval Church,” in Covenant Theology, 311–25.
3. See, for example, the Roman Catholic scholar, Scott Hahn, Kinship by Covenant: A Canonical Approach to the Fulfillment of God’s Saving Promises (Yale, 2009).
4. See Pascal Denault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, trans. Mac and Elizabeth Wigfield (Solid Ground, 2013).
5. For an introduction, see Stephen J. Wellum and Brent E. Parker, eds., Progressive Covenantalism: Charting a Course Between Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies (B&H, 2016). For analysis and response, see Benjamin L. Merkle, Discontinuity to Continuity: A Survey of Dispensational and Covenantal Theologies (Lexham, 2020), 108–38; Richard P. Belcher Jr., The Fulfillment of the Promises of God: An Explanation of Covenant Theology (Christian Focus, 2020), 233–58. For the sake of space, we are unable to address what has been called new covenant theology, on which see Scott R. Swain, “New Covenant Theologies,” in Covenant Theology, 551–69.
6. See Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Banner of Truth, 1975), 27–29.
7. Vos, Biblical Theology, v–vi. For an elaboration, see Vos, “The Idea of Biblical Theology as a Science and as a Theological Discipline,” in Richard B. Gaffin Jr., ed., Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos (P&R, 1980), 3–24.
8. The Westminster Standards do not explicitly affirm a covenant of redemption (yet see the implicit testimony at WLC 31). The doctrine was, however, articulated by such theologians contemporary to the Westminster Standards as David Dickson, James Durham, and Samuel Rutherford.
9. Denault, Distinctiveness, 55. See the discussion at Distinctiveness, 55–77. Cf. LBC 7.3.
10. See Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom Through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants, 2nd ed. (Crossway, 2018).
11. Representative here is Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, rev. ed. (Moody, 1995).